This study examined whether the current measures for aggressor students in school violence contribute to achieving the intended guidance purposes of those students as stipulated by the Act of the Prevention and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools, particularly in situations where disciplinary actions against aggressor students are emphasized. This study also uated the implementation of current guidance measures for aggressor students by focusing on policy changes, shifts in relevant regulations, the fairness and expertise of measures from the perspectives of judicial precedents and media coverage, and foreign policies regarding countermeasures against school violence.

  With improvements in the investigation process of the current exclusive unit and the Committee of School Violence, professionals have been involved in establishing the countermeasure standards to ensure objectivity and expertise of decision-making. However, some deficiencies in expertise have been identified in the application of detailed standards. Moreover, it was difficult to uate the process as fully committed to “raise students as healthy members of society through the mediation between victim students and aggressor students, as pursued by the Act of the Prevention and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools.” The immediate separation measure, which restricts aggressor students’ learning rights based on the ‘presumption’ of wrongdoing, led to conflicts in schools.

  The nine measures designed for aggressor students aim to guide them onto the right path and teach appropriate behavior. Yet, several measures have a strong ‘disciplinary nature’ and challenging to implement effectively within schools. For instance, an order to give a written apology to a victim student presupposes a genuine apology, but it often functions as a mere legal formality, lacking genuine repentance. Similarly, the service to the school or society aims to instill responsibility through service, but has proven difficult to implement due to the lack of volunteer institutions, and its effectiveness in inducing repentance is questionable. The service to the school or society has often been used as a way to skip classes. Additionally, measures such as the prohibition against making contact have limitations. There was an issue where the anxiety of victim students could not be resolved due to the lack of a prohibition at the level of ‘a restraining order’ during the judicial phase. Dealing with cyber-violence also had a limitation in terms of response. Completing a special educational course or psychological treatment from experts from within and outside school lacks personalized application to aggressor students. Since the suspension of attendance does not equate to school suspension, there is a constraint in preventing contact between a victim student and an aggressor student. Concerning the change of class, schools face challenges with teachers and complaints, especially when the school violence is already known. uating the implementation of measures on aggressor students involved in school violence revealed that many of these measures could not be effectively applied within schools. Post the decisions to take measures against school violence, there are no follow-up actions beyond entering student records, and there is no system in place to monitor measure implementation continuously.

   Early interventions and selective sanctions are essential to resolving conflicts before imposing measures on aggressor students in school violence cases. Conflict resolution procedures should be immediately undertaken to facilitate aggressor students’ repentance and aid victim students’ speedy recovery. In contrast to Korea’s process of dealing with school violence cases, foreign countries focus on early intervention and conflict resolution to prevent the recurrence of school violence. In Korea, efforts to restore relations are made only in the Self-Resolution by Heads of Schools or the stage of the mediation of disputes by a deliberative committee. As a result, the conflicts between both sides escalate because they focus on drawing favorable issues with legal assistance in the process of investigating cases by the Organization of Exclusive Units. To mitigate the potential for conflicts, an external conflict resolution expert should immediately intervene before immediate separation and fully explain the necessity and benefits of immediate separation and investigation procedures. Immediate separation, which could restrict aggressor students’ learning rights based on the ‘presumption’ of wrongdoing, might contribute to intensifying conflicts. Hence, it is more appropriate to utilize immediate separation selectively in cases where it is urgently needed, such as group violence or sexual violence.

  In the process of making decisions regarding measures against school violence, a deliberative committee needs to actively engage in the mediation of disputes stipulated by the Act of the Prevention and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools, rather than focusing only on decision-making. Currently, the mediation of disputes under the Act of the Prevention and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools emphasizes monetary settlements, but it is necessary to institutionalize a deliberative committee to make more active efforts toward conflict resolution by including a provision of “the mediation of conflicts related to school violence” in the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 18. In addition, there is a need to include a new provision that “if a settlement is reached as a result of mediation of a dispute, the result of the mediation should be considered in the decision of measures” in Paragraph 8. Measures such as mitigation of measures or taking no measures may also be considered as possible approaches.

  In the Standards Applicable to Each Measure to Aggressor Students, factors such as the deliberateness and continuity of school violence inflicted by an aggressor student, the extent of reconciliation, and the degree of repentance of an aggressor student are taken into account to calculate assessment scores. The Ministry of Education should establish criteria for determining basic and additional factors, such as defining the time point of continuity determination criteria, modifying the assessment score scale for the reconciliation, and providing opportunities for teachers to express their opinions to determine the degree of repentance of aggressor students.

  Individual measures against aggressor students who commit school violence need to be tailored to the specific circumstances of schools and the intended guidance purposes. First and foremost, an order to give a written apology to a victim student should be considered based on genuine apology, rather than relying solely on the format of a written . The prohibition against making contact with a victim student should align with restraining orders’ standards, while improving the learning environment to minimize the infringement of aggressor students’ learning rights. In instances of cyber-violence, additional measures such as mobile phone usage restrictions, similar to those implemented in foreign countries, should be introduced to complement the prohibition against making contact with victim students. Regarding cyber-violence, regulations encompassing communication device restrictions should be incorporated into the measures. Concerning the service to the school or society, the scope should be expanded beyond public or administrative institutions, allowing for a greater variety of choices. Systematization should be established to monitor the process and outcomes of the measure. To ensure the effectiveness of special education, it is necessary to develop specialized programs for different types of aggressor students and establish a monitoring system for the quality of special educational institutions. Given the absence of a limit on suspension periods, efforts should be made to establish criteria, such as a maximum of 10 days or setting suspension periods selectively based on the circumstances of aggressor students.

  The measures taken against aggressor students involved in school violence are all disciplinary measures. However, as seen in the example of Germany, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between “educational measures” and “disciplinary measures” and categorize them in a way that the intended purpose of each measure is well understood and adhered to aggressor students. Furthermore, institutional improvements are required to ensure that remedial procedures based on the implementation of measures can be materialized. Incorporating an institutional system that allows for the reduction or exemption of measures based on sincere implementation, such as the release of juvenile delinquencies under proper guidance conditions or the suspension of the prosecution with the supervision for the juvenile, could encourage aggressor students to actively engage in education or treatment.

  Ensuring proper implementation of measures is important, but it is equally crucial to establish a systematic process for preventing the recurrence of school violence after these measures have been taken. To prevent recurrence, there needs to be continuous monitoring of aggressor students, and information sharing among schools and relevant institutions should be institutionalized to enable proactive support when needed. Strengthening the accountability of the aggressor students’ parents in the post-management phase is necessary. Not only should the responsibility for the incidents of school violence be placed on the aggressor students, but their parents should also deal with this issue with an ongoing sense of responsibility. For this purpose, a coordinated system within a local community that provides resources for parental guidance and necessary support should be established. In terms of protection of victim students, efforts should be made to take a cautious approach, because there is a possibility of secondary victimization if a procedure is implemented to obtain the consent of victim students at all stages of the procedure.

Keywords: School Violence, Aggressor Students, the Act of the Prevention and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools, educational measures